|More government stuff
||[Jun. 5th, 2003|04:05 pm]
Ashcroft doesn't think that the USA PATRIOT act doesn't go far enough. He wants more powers... |
(and remainder behind a cut-tag...
The death penalty provision would allow for executions in cases where a terrorist caused “massive loss of life” by attacking a military base, nuclear plant or energy plant, the Justice Department said.
Ashcroft also said some courts have ruled that “going and taking training, and joining up with” terrorist groups abroad could not be prosecuted under the current material support statute, and he wants that changed.
(End quoted material)
As for "death penalty for cases where a terrorist attacks a military base", I'm sorry... that's an act of war. I hate to say it; I imagine some of my military friends being killed by a sneak attack, and it really bothers me, but in any war, military targets are valid, and people don't get executed for them. What is the difference between a 'terrorist' attack blowing up a military base, and our sending in cruise missiles from hundreds of kilometers away to do the same thing?
(Terrorist is in quotes because my personal definition of terrorism requires that the target not be a valid military target. Feel free to mentally remove the quotes if you disagree)
As for the second paragraph, thank the lord and lady that there are sensible courts out there. Try them for "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" or create a new law that criminalizes the behavior; don't twist 'material support' into 'immaterial association'.